Nature endows all of us with (basically) one of two sets of “plumbing.” There are rare or odd exceptions involving mutations that produce both or none, but these are uncommon and not nature’s design. Anyone enamored of Darwin’s thoughts on evolution knows this. The survival of any species depends on its ability to procreate.
Evolution theory is about survival (of the fittest). Successive generations in a given environment carry on traits that the theory presumes were better, like refusing to let the public school convince their kids to cut off their genitals. Birds don’t do it, Bees Don’t Do it, and even dedicated fleas won’t do it. They don’t do it because they don’t send their “kids” to public schools.
Ending one’s own genetic succession is not nature’s way; that would be a fabrication of human imagination followed by choices and deliberate action. It is certainly your right not to procreate – not to pass down genetic copies of yourself. There’s an entire political movement obsessed with the idea. Master-race-like thinking from progressive minds without the pomp of swastikas and genocide. Unless you think a cultural movement to neuter other people’s children isn’t at least similar.
The premise is that what nature chooses is not natural but that what people can pretend or imagine is. But for all the shouting, posturing, and presumption, the gender warriors, with their socially constructed 57 flavors, are still trapped in a two-plumbing paradigm. The one nature gave them. Regardless of which body parts are removed, the “therapy” insists that the pinnacle of modern transition is to try to mimic those of the other set (sometimes) with recreated flesh (in that image) that doesn’t do any of the things of which the original was capable. That a permanent life-altering bait-and-switch is natural.
You trade a natural body for useless flesh—an affectation of transition after which physical pleasure is difficult to impossible. And this is supposed to make you feel better, and when it doesn’t, it is someone else’s fault.
Such a Drag
Regardless of where you are on the socially constructed gender spectrum, the other “two sets of plumbing paradigm” paradox is clothing. The television people have been working as hard as librarians to normalize drag queens. Men who think they are entertainers dressed up as a caricature of a slutty woman. Dresses, high heels, and lots of sexual innuendo. If that’s what floats your boat, but what’s so brave about abandoning one social construct for another?
It is not edgy or even empowering, certainly not to women who have for centuries worked to expand their choices, only to have men take their womanhood (trophies, ribbons, awards, scholarships) and characterize it as entertainment. Again, I’m not dragging drag queens. I’m observing a lack of ability to escape the paradigms the movement insists on having skewered in the name of progress. Progress?
Men dressed up like women in Elizabethan England because women were not allowed to perform on a stage. Is that next? Are transwomen or drag queens going to replace women on screens, small and large, because they are underrepresented? Has it happened already? And if so, how is it empowering to replace real women with men dressed up like women? Is the problem that women have been able to dress like men and look a lot better doing it? Or that none of it matters. At the end of the day, this movement has loosened laws allowing predators to gain access to children and ladies in once-safe spaces—places where the two sets of plumbing problems result in the authentic act of rape.
A price the gender cult is willing to make someone else pay for empowerment in service to a kink.
